Washington v. HOVENSA LLC
55 V.I. 1265
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Gloria Washington was injured on Hovensa's Virgin Islands property and filed a damage action in the Virgin Islands district court against Hovensa and Triangle on July 24, 2006, alleging diversity jurisdiction.
- Washington had ties to both Texas and the Virgin Islands, owning property and maintaining ties in Texas while living and working in St. Croix for seven months before the filing.
- The district court concluded Washington domicile was the Virgin Islands, emphasizing indefinite V.I. assignment and Washington's social and business life there.
- Washington contends she remained domiciled in Texas and intended to return there permanently after her V.I. assignment ended.
- The district court disregarded Washington’s post-complaint affidavit stating Texas intent, citing a Korn-like self-serving declaration issue.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit reviews domicile de novo on legal principles but for factual determinations with clear error, and remands for proper application of domicile rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Washington domiciled in the Virgin Islands at filing? | Washington contends Texas domicile persisted despite V.I. assignment. | Defendants argue V.I. center of life and indefinite assignment establish VI domicile. | Remand needed; domicile must be reconsidered under correct principles. |
| Did the district court properly apply the presumption against changing domicile and burden of production? | Presumption favors Texas domicile; Washington produced evidence to rebut. | Defendants bore burden to show change to VI domicile. | Presumption applied; remand to weigh evidence with proper presumption. |
| Should Washington's self-serving affidavit regarding Texas intent be disregarded? | Affidavit corroborates her preexisting conduct indicating Texas domicile. | Korn requires disregard of self-serving intent if contradicted by conduct. | Korn not controlling; affidavit should not have been disregarded; remand. |
| Did the district court err in factual findings that Washington's life was centered in St. Croix? | Record shows limited ties and transient stay rather than true center in VI. | Evidence supports VI life center and indefinite work assignment. | Error; remand to correct factual basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298 (3d Cir. 1972) (domicile analysis considers center of life and indeterminate assignment)
- McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2006) (domicile is mixed fact-law; presumption favors established domicile)
- Korn v. Korn, 398 F.2d 689 (3d Cir. 1968) (self-serving domicile declarations discounted when contradicted by conduct)
- Frett-Smith v. Vanterpool, 511 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2008) (emphasizes center-of-life and residency elements in VI domicile)
- S. Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Grp. Ltd., 181 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 1999) (determinants of citizenship for diversity; domicile as true home and habitation)